Judge Denies Request From Former Trump Advisor Roger Stone for New Trial

A federal judge denied a request from Roger Stone, a former Trump campaign advisor, for a new trial.

Stone was convicted by a jury of obstruction, witness tampering, and making false statements to Congress in November 2017.

Stone wanted the new trial because, he argued, a juror who shouldnt have been allowed to hear the original trial was allowed to, according to the court order from Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama-appointee. Stone claimed that the Court failed “to strike a juror from the jury pool for bias because (the person) is employed in a division of the Internal Revenue Service” that had worked with the Department of Justice on multiple cases.

In the ruling, which was made last week but was only released publicly on Wednesday, Jackson said Stone failed to establish “inherent bias.”

There was nothing in the jurors questionnaire or in-court testimony to support the dissertation that the juror worked “hand-in-hand” with lawyers from the Department of Justice, she said.

“The fact that the juror was just one of these approximately 1,400 lawyers [at the IRS] does not begin to establish the sort of inherent bias that should have prompted the Court to strike [the person] in its discretion,” Jackson wrote in the ruling.

Stones lawyers didnt include the juror in a list of jurors to strike or in a renewed request for strikes, Jackson said.

roger stone leaves the court
roger stone leaves the court
Former adviser to President Donald Trump, Roger Stone, leaves the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse after being found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russias interference in the 2016 election, in Washington on Nov. 15, 2019. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The second argument by Stone, that the juror failed to follow instructions not to read about the case, “is also not sufficient to warrant a new trial,” Jackson wrote. The juror testified that he or she saw “a small article” one day on the way to court. “There was no evidence that the juror took any steps on [his or her] own to defy the Courts instructions and [his or her] limited exposure to a single piece in the newspRead More – Source

Show More

Related Articles